Love your title! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost...@...> wrote: > > Judy's habitual fallback to "dishonest" gets my goat.
(That's "intellectually dishonest." Not the same thing as lying.) > The background was: > > 1) An article by philosopher Denis Dutton: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html > > In a nutshell he argued that "Apocalyptic scenarios" > are a diversion from real problems. As well as Y2K he > includes catastrophic climate change alarmism in that > bag. > > 2) Me: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be > reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade > ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as > to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had > gained such enormous power" > > 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact > that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to > successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted > because attention was paid to it." > > 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story): "A friend noticed > that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle > crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' > : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any > lions here?' : 'See, it works!'" > > 5) So here we go, here goes Judy: "Anytime you want to > change your approach and have an intellectually honest > discussion, just let me know, OK?" > > 6) I protested at that. And here's how Judy responded: > > "Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* > that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually > necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story > as if that were a definitive response." > > So let's look at that. > > Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a > bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence. > > That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The > Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what > would otherwise be a dry point. Viz: > > :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to > materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification > for any steps we may have taken to avert it :: Since I never said it did, we can add "non sequitur" to the "thought-stopper" charge. > (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world > next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday > "we told you so"). > > But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's > asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the > Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence. Well, no, it's not a request for evidence. It's an implicit assertion that there can *be* no evidence. That's why I called it a thought-stopper. > And that is supposed to be "intellectually dishonest"? > > By Judy's lights "intellectual dishonesty" is padded > out to mean "*argue* it, with facts and logic". (A > bizarre padding out, but let's leave that aside). It sure would be bizarre if that's what I had said. What I said was that an intellectually *honest* argument uses facts and logic, not thought-stoppers. BTW, it's just as intellectually dishonest to suggest that because no lions are in evidence, therefore scattering crumbs to keep them away is a waste of time, as it is to point to the absence of lions and suggest that the crumbs did their job. > Well I have now spelled out how the Nasrudin story is > an argument (not that it should have needed that). It didn't, because it isn't. (And it's also a perversion of the context of the original story, but let's leave that aside for now.) > But what about facts? The only such items appearing in > the thread so far can be sourced from our side of the > debate and not from Judy's lofty tones. This evidence > was on the table (not that I think that's where the > burden of proof should lie. Again, think praying > priests). Judy ignored it. Our philosopher friend from > New Zealand had pointed out that the consequences were > pretty much the same whether countries panicked about > Y2K, or whether they didn't. He identified those > countries too. He made a case. No, his "case" was just as intellectually dishonest as yours. (Or maybe just ignorant; hard to tell.) > Judy made no case in response save to fire off her > blunderbuss. That's not "*arguing* it, with facts and > logic" I'd say. Right. I declined to argue with a thought-stopper. > As a second attempt to justify the use of > "intellectual dishonesty" we have this: > > Me: "Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? > Because that would be "dishonest" I suppose." > > Judy: "No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story > is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent > argument." > > Is the Nasrudin story a "thought stopper"? No, it is a > valid point (see above). Perhaps Judy is confusing her > thoughts stopping for its being a thought stopper? > > Does Judy marshall any evidence, any facts or logic, > for it being a thought stopper? I assumed that was self-evident. A thought-stopper is something designed to *cut off* argument, which is what the Nasrudin story (in your use of it) did. Oh no. It's just > another bald assertion. So what does that say about > THAT point then (by Judy's own stance)..."intellectual > dishonesty"? By using "thought stopper" here, is not > Judy herself "hiding behind a thought stopper"? Nope. I said *explicitly* that if you wanted to have a discussion with me, you'd have to lose the intellectual dishonesty. > And finally we have this afterthought: > > Judy: "*And* you're using Y2K as a stand-in for > climate change, so you're trying to short-circuit > argument about that at the same time." > > This is nonsense of course. There is NO attempt > whatsoever by anyone to claim that the the evidence > (such as it is) for what Judy refers to as "climate > change" (silly phrase for the scientific conjecture) > has anything whatsoever to do with the Y2K phenomenon. > What it IS is a cultural observation about how (in our > opinion) highly technical issues Such as Y2K and...hmmm, climate change, oddly enough. (Or anthropogenic global warming, if you prefer). can be hijacked and > re-packaged by politicians and the media so that the > facts about the evidence get obscured. And the > conjecture is that it is connected with some sort of > wish or attraction that our culture has for dooom & > gloom scenarios. Nobody's disputing this, of course. But you can't use it to simply dismiss every disaster forecast as due *only* to our cultural attraction to doom-and-gloom scenarios. The fact that we have such an attraction does NOT mean it's the only factor, or that when we do entertain such a scenario, whatever it focuses on is therefore not valid. You have to take it on a case-by- case basis. BTW, your "philosopher" isn't the first to have used Y2K as a stand-in for AGW. It's something of a staple for AGW denialists. It's an *intellectually dishonest* stand-in, but there you are. > This is what I wrote: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism > to be reasonably "based on fact" (sound science)." Do > you see that? No mention of Y2K. And your denial that you were using Y2K as a stand-in for AGW is also intellectually dishonest. Note that you didn't address anything I said about AGW; your sole response was the Nasrudin story with reference to what I said about Y2K. Nor did you address the point in my earlier post about the philosopher's guilt- by-association ploy (which you've adopted). You have a habit of leaving lots of stuff on the table. You tend to pick out a tidbit here or there to address in such a way that the original discussion gets derailed and sidetracked. It's hard not to see that as deliberate. > The scientific cash-value of statements such as Judy's > "Climate change is *already* having severe effects on > the needy" interest me. I wonder if the concept of > "intellectual dishonesty" could gain better purchase > there? I already gave you the examples of Bangladesh and Peru in an earlier thread. You left that on the table too. Lots of evidence in both cases. Here's a start: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/02/25/global_warming_gains_foothold_in_bangladesh/ http://tinyurl.com/yd7t9kb http://tv.oneworld.net/2009/10/13/peru-struggles-with-rising-temperatures/ http://tinyurl.com/ya5352w As to Y2K, two main points: It wasn't just the media and the lay public that were crying gloom and doom; it was the consensus of IT experts. And as for the countries that did little or nothing and had no major problems, that doesn't prove anything, given the vast differences between the size and complexity of their infrastructures and the degree of the dependence of those infrastructures on electronic information technology, as compared to the situation in the larger countries that made major efforts to prevent Y2K problems. Here's a piece by Farhad Manjoo of Slate that discusses Y2K in retrospect: http://www.slate.com/id/2235357/entry/2235359/
